Read on Twitter
Surprised some people can confuse two issues:
The need for science to self correct AND expunging/ deleting/ retracting a tiny tiny fraction of random articles, largely for the crime of angering a mob
Of course we need the former, but the later doesn't get you there (thread)
The need for science to self correct AND expunging/ deleting/ retracting a tiny tiny fraction of random articles, largely for the crime of angering a mob
Of course we need the former, but the later doesn't get you there (thread)
The problem with inaccurate science is deep and mostly unintentional.
People are not bad, but the flexibility in analyses and the incentives to claim discover result in an epidemic of false discoveries
People are not bad, but the flexibility in analyses and the incentives to claim discover result in an epidemic of false discoveries
Dealing with this is a deep issue that must address how we promote or reward scientists
Instead. Recently we find efforts to retract an objectionable article here or there. Some claim this is meant to combat bad science. Come on, you are deceiving yourself
Instead. Recently we find efforts to retract an objectionable article here or there. Some claim this is meant to combat bad science. Come on, you are deceiving yourself
The number of articles you can muster the political capital to retract is infitesimally smaller than bad articles
you are taking a cup of water out of the ocean
you are taking a cup of water out of the ocean
And the articles you are picking are not the worst offenders or even random. They are topical articles that have highly interested audiences where the ratio of views is skewed.
Topics that 10% of scientists care about and 95% feel one way. In other words, you are just letting the equivalent of a science mob enforce vigilante justice. You are not solving the problem you claim to care about.
In fact you deepen it by The capriciousness of the action
In fact you deepen it by The capriciousness of the action
But feel free to kid yourself that you are making science great. You are just creating conditions for a very dangerous censorship AND preserving most BS publications.
The new COPE guidelines
And..
